What Kind of a Book is the Bible? . . .

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES

Because of the clear instruction that we have in 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is inspired of God,” we can unhesitatingly speak of the fact of inspiration. The scriptures are inspired. But any explanation as to just how this is must be seen as a mere theory. There is no theory of inspiration in the scriptures, and it is just as well that we have no theory. Nor is inspiration itself, much less any theory of it, essential to the Christian faith. Just as there was religion given of God before there were any Old Covenant scriptures, there was the gospel of Christ before there was any written record of it. Even the great B. B. Warfield, of old Princeton fame and a noble defender of the inspired scriptures, insisted that “Were there no such thing as inspiration, Christianity would be true, and all its essential doctrines would be credibly witnessed to us.”

It may prove helpful to distinguish some terms that are often confused, namely inspiration, revelation, illumination, and interpretation. Inspiration is “the breathing of God” into the man and what he writes in such a way that the information is given that God intends and it is protected against any substantial error. The Spirit is at work in such away, in both the man and the scripture, that God’s purposes are realized without any material mistakes being allowed to occur. This allows for errors in the Bible, which are evident enough, but no error that interferes with the message and purpose God has in view. A recording may have scratches, but this doesn’t matter so long as the master’s voice comes through loud and clear.

Revelation is the unfolding of the mind of God. It is a disclosure of what man cannot know otherwise. This makes it distinct from inspiration. There can be revelation without inspiration and there can be inspiration without revelation. When God thundered forth on Mt. Sinai, “I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” He was disclosing His mind. “God spoke all these words, saying,” reads the record. This was revelation, but He inspired no one in making it known. He simply spoke it, burning His words into tables of stone. When a record was later made of this, such as we have in Exodus, it was by inspiration, that is, God so superintended the writing of it as to safeguard it against error.

This means that one might be inspired without receiving any revelation from God, which must have been the case with Luke in Luke-Acts. The preface to Luke makes it clear that the doctor got his information, not directly from God, but by researching his sources. “Having followed all things closely for some time past,” Luke was ready to do his thing. It was not a matter of his sitting down and writing as God disclosed to him the information, which would have been revelation. Like one writing a thesis, Dr. Luke gathered his material over a long period of time, both from existing narratives and living witnesses, and then began his story. But it was inspiration in that God over-ruled, causing him to gather the material that fit the divine purpose, and God “in-breathed” (inspired) the writing of it so that it would stand as an authentic record, free of any crucial error. So, we’ll go on record as saying what is obvious enough, that Luke-Acts is not part of God’s revelation, though it is part of the inspired scriptures.

Illumination is enlightenment, and Eph. 1:18 shows this to be one of the things the Spirit does for us: “having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you.” Illumination “lights up” what is already revealed, but it bears no additional revelation. 2 Cor. 4:4 shows how this is: “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing (Illumination) the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Here Satan keeps the unbelievers from seeing what is already revealed. So the Holy Spirit can so enlighten the mind that it will “see” in what is already revealed that which might otherwise be missed. The psalmist could pray: “Open mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things from your word.” The insight to see what is already revealed in illumination.

There can be illumination without inspiration, and there can be inspiration without illumination. Any of us can be illumined by the Spirit in our study of the word even though we are not inspired. The Spirit can “cause us to see” the deeper truths, or he might lead us to consult certain scriptures that we need at the time. This is not revelation nor inspiration, but it is illumination. And 1 Pet. 1:10-11 reveals that the prophets “searched and inquired” into those things that they foretold, without really understanding all they were saying. Here we have both revelation and inspiration, but not illumination. A prophet might speak God’s word and yet not understand what he’s saying!

Interpretation is simply man’s view of God’s revelation. Revelation is what God says, while interpretation is the meaning we give to what He has said. We have a way of confusing the two, identifying what we suppose the scriptures to teach with what they actually teach. Those who deny that they interpret, but simply “take the Bible for what it says,” are only kidding themselves. There is no way to make sense of any literature except by ascertaining its meaning. This is true of the simplest sentences, whether in the Bible or out. If we are told “The man made the horse fast,” we have to judge by context what it means, for it could refer to hurrying an animal, causing him to go without food, tying him, or hurriedly carving him out of wood or stone. If Jesus tells us that he is “the bread come down out of heaven,” we don’t just take it for what it says. One who doesn’t interpret does nothing. It is important that we realize that we do interpret and that we are not infallible interpreters.

The various theories of inspiration are probably more interesting than they are profitable, and yet anyone who gives any thought to this question will come up with some theory. This is all right if he will but keep in mind that it is only a theory, and that it is not something he can impose upon others. We can believe that one theory is better than others, but we have no way of really knowing since the scriptures set forth no explanation as to how they are inspired. 2 Pet. 1:21 tells of how “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” but again we have the fact of inspiration without any explanation of how.

Some theories are clearly unacceptable. The dictation theory makes the writer God’s amanuensis, a passive instrument that takes dictation and passes it on to paper. He is but a pen, not a penman. This theory sees the Bible as a book dictated by God, which gives no place for the writer’s own individuality. This theory is most difficult to defend in the light of so many differences in the gospel narratives. Take Mt. 27:37: “And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” Mark 15:26 says it read, “The King of the Jews,” while Lk. 23:38 has it, “This is the King of the Jews” and Jn. 19:19 has, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

This makes it hard for a dictation theory, for all four accounts are different. Three of them have to be wrong in terms of what Pilate actually wrote. But the Spirit saw to it that we get the point. That is inspiration amidst the “jars and conflicts” between the writers. But surely if the Spirit had dictated, he would not have made the statement four different ways to the four different evangelists.

The “jars and conflicts” are abundant in scripture, but they are no problem if one does not impose upon the Bible a character that it doesn’t claim for itself, which makes it some sort of heavenly document that escapes man’s imperfect handiwork. Its glory lies in being human as well as divine, in being imperfect even while perfect. It is, after all, a human book, emerging amidst oriental culture, and it would be strange indeed if such marks were not upon it. God gave us the Bible in history, not in a vacuum in which the Holy Spirit recited the story of the ages, in some such manner as is claimed for Mohammed and the Koran in that cave.

The story of Jesus healing the centurion’s slave boy points up what I am saying. Lk. 7:2f. tells how the centurion “sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave.” It goes on to tell how the elders commended the centurion, assuring Jesus that he is a worthy man and that “he loves our nation and he built us our synagogue.” Mt. 8:5 tells the same story, but there it says that the centurion himself came to Jesus, saying nothing about the elders or their conversation with Jesus. Which is right? Did the centurion himself go to Jesus or did he send elders? A study of the situation may lead us to conclude that a man of authority would send a delegation rather than go himself, and that the elders really did say those things to Jesus. But this makes Matthew wrong, wrong in some of the details, that is, but still right in the purpose he had in mind: to tell of the centurion’s faith and Jesus’ power to heal.

This sort of thing authenticates the scriptures, for if they were fabrication, the deceivers would have never allowed conflicts of that sort. It would have been smoother than that. And this isn’t going to upset anyone unless his faith is in some theory of inspiration that he has no business having to start with.

It is like the narratives about resurrection morning, which do not lack in conflicts. One of the most glaring is the disagreement between Mark and Luke in reference to the behavior of the women after seeing the empty tomb and hearing the voice of an angel. Mk. 16:8 says they fled from the tomb in great fear, “and they said nothing to anyone.” Lk. 24:9 says, “and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.” Which is right? Obviously they cannot both be right in reference to this detail.

This is not going to be a big deal to anyone unless he has that view of the Bible expressed by one of our brothers in the Firm Foundation: “God’s book is true. It is infallible. It is verbally inspired. There are no errors or mistakes within it. If the reader knows of one, let him produce it.”

I could make this statement except for a line or two. I would put sentence 4: There are no errors or mistakes that really matter. And to say “verbally inspired” is to be vague, and it reflects a theory of inspiration that is risky. I will simply say, It is inspired, which is what 2 Tim. 3:16 says. It does not say “all scripture is verbally inspired.”

And the inspiration of the resurrection narratives to me is that God’s message comes through loud and clear, blessedly clear: He is risen! That the writers have scratches in the record only enhances the great truth that they all agree on, and the only one that matters anyhow. Jesus lives!

Other theories of inspiration that we reject are the intuition theory and the illumination theory. The intuition theory holds that God enhanced the natural intuitive powers of the writers of scripture, much like Shakespeare might be thought of as “inspired.” There is nothing supernatural involved.

The illumination theory holds that the writers themselves are inspired but not their writings. But this theory allows for nothing really supernatural, for it is but the elevation of his spiritual powers to the point that he is above other men in “illumination,” and so he writes more sublime literature. It allows for no objective revelation. Man gains truth through his own illumined insight.

So I reject the dictation theory on the ground that it is mechanical and because it does not give proper place to the humanity of the scriptures. I reject the intuition theory because it accounts for the scriptures on strictly naturalistic basis, ignoring the supernatural. I reject the illumination theory because I believe we are talking about inspired writings and not simply inspired men, and because inspiration transcends any power man has in himself.

That leaves the dynamical theory. which is the one I see as the most acceptable. It holds that inspiration is supernatural, plenary (complete), and dynamical, which means that the scriptures are a union of the divine and human elements. The Bible is the work of both God and man, and it is not to be considered either wholly human or wholly divine. The Spirit moved in the apostles and prophets, causing them to speak and write in keeping with God’s purposes, but they remained as much human as before. Just as the presence of God glowed in the burning bush, the bush remained as much a bush as before.

This means that inspiration did not remove the personal peculiarities of the writers, but rather pressed those unique traits into service. So, we have divine truth in human form, which means that we need not be surprised when the imperfections of men bleed through. This explains why a writer may quote inaccurately from the Old Testament while making his point clear enough, or why he may attribute something to one prophet when it was really from another. Inspiration does not insure him against a faulty memory, not necessarily. Preferences and prejudices even enter in, as well as one’s bad grammar, one writer using much better Greek or Hebrew than another. When God made a prophet or an apostle he did not unmake the man. This is why Paul ventures into considerable autobiographical detail, telling about his conversion (not always exactly the same way) as well as his “thorn in the flesh,” which he waited fourteen years to tell. He wouldn’t have told it then had it not been for the critical situation at Corinth. But in all this the Spirit moved, using the situations that arose to give us the scriptures God wanted us to have. Philemon is a very ordinary personal letter, containing some everyday “small talk” (“Prepare a guest room for me”), but the Spirit served as superintendent, making sure that we got this precious little document. Paul remains as much Paul as before, though inspired of the Spirit, even to the using of offensive language that he could have avoided, but which was so much a part of his temperament, such as Gal. 5:12. The New English gets the closest: “As for these agitators, they had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves.” It could be put plainer than that! The Spirit did not dictate that, for it boils forth from Paul’s seething anger. But the Spirit brings it into tow, vinegar and all, and uses it for God’s purpose.

The dynamic theory says, therefore, that inspiration uses the normal methods of literary composition. God did not employ the miraculous in giving us the scriptures as much as He mediated and supervised the natural and normal flow of literary production. Nor does inspiration mean inerrancy, except in those things essential to the main purpose of scripture. Neither does it imply revelation or direct communication, for God often used the writer’s own experience and knowledge in conveying His word to man. But inspiration does imply that the human mind can be inhabited and energized by the Spirit of God, while at the same time preserving its own uniqueness in intelligence and resourcefulness. —the Editor